Severing troll limbs

[pemerton]

In his recent column on trolls, James Wyatt says this:

Incidentally, the ability of severed parts to attack has always been true of trolls in the game, but it has been hard to model in the rules. For example, the 2nd Edition AD&D Monstrous Manual said that a natural 20 with an edged weapon would sever a limb. I think this is best left to the DM’s description: when you’re using an edged weapon while fighting a troll, the DM might describe how you lop off an arm—but the arm keeps fighting, without hindering the troll’s combat ability at all.​

What is the general view of this free narration approach to severing trolls' limbs? I would expect it to be a bit controversial, but may be not.

 

[slobo777]

It would be kind of cool if mechanically the Troll could get a flank with it's own severed arm!

However, only if it didn't come at the cost of a paragraph of fiddly rules text.

I don't personally see this any different from narrating hacking bits of zombies off, but they still advance. It's a nice add to the feel of the game, it doesn't need rules to be fun.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I think it's probably fine, until someone decides to attack the arm.

Or wonder why they can't sever a limb on every attack (dissociation warning!).

 

[Scipio202]

I read it to mean that the hacked-off, but still attacking arm was narrative description, but that it didn't have any mechanical impact on the combat. If ran that way, I'm not sure why it would be controversial. If I were the DM I would keep the severed arm close to the main troll to avoid issues like flanking, etc.

 

[Stormonu]

It would be kind of cool if mechanically the Troll could get a flank with it's own severed arm!

Gawd, that'd probably drop the character's jaws if they ran across a troll and the first thing it does is rip off its own arms to scuttle and flank while it bites. Or the thing rips off its own head to fling at a fleeing character.

I do think it needs some notation in the rule; the same rule would be helpful for other cases, such as the heads of a hydra or perhaps zombies that could be disassembled in the same way.

Easiest might be to notate it as a standard rule that a severed limb has something like 25% of the creature's hit point and is severed on a critical hit (or a "called shot" at -4, like ol' 2E). On creatures such as trolls or hydras, the limb's hit points could be put in paratheses by the hp, or noted as a "special ability".

Rubbery limbs: If a troll suffers a critial hit with an edged weapon, the attack has severed a limb (roll d6: 1 - left leg, 2 - right leg, 3 - left arm, 4 - right arm, 5 - head, 6 - attacker's choice). The severed limb has 20 hit points, which are taken from the troll's total hit points [assuming a troll with 80 hp]. The troll can expend up to 2 points of regeneration per limb to heal a like amount of damage to the limb. The limb can move at a rate of 10' and attack independently. If the limb is held to the troll's main body for one round, it will reattach itself.

 

[Manbearcat]

In his recent column on trolls, James Wyatt says this:

Incidentally, the ability of severed parts to attack has always been true of trolls in the game, but it has been hard to model in the rules. For example, the 2nd Edition AD&D Monstrous Manual said that a natural 20 with an edged weapon would sever a limb. I think this is best left to the DM’s description: when you’re using an edged weapon while fighting a troll, the DM might describe how you lop off an arm—but the arm keeps fighting, without hindering the troll’s combat ability at all.​

What is the general view of this free narration approach to severing trolls' limbs? I would expect it to be a bit controversial, but may be not.

Everyone knows that troll's have independent, autonomous neural systems embedded in each of their limbs so that when such a need arises, the exiled appendages can act of their own accord. That or trolls just use their telekinesis (that is limited to channeling the latent kinetic energy in their own limbs). Given that either of these explanations are quite sensible and have long historical precedent (just now), it is clear that this is an associated anatomic happenstance within the implied setting. Clearly. No controversy. Move along. Nothing to see here. We don't need the rules or setting texts to model or detail/canvass in-game cause and effect interactions. Except when we do. Lest they be dissociated. Or something.

 

[Minigiant]

It would be kind of cool if mechanically the Troll could get a flank with it's own severed arm!

However, only if it didn't come at the cost of a paragraph of fiddly rules text.

Everything is fine and dandy until you need rules for situational flavor elements.

Because then you either waste time looking up a rules you hope doesn't suck or counting on the DM to make a ruling that doesn't cause problems or grumbling later.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Sounds cool, but how do you play it?

How many hit points does an arm have? A leg? If you sever and damage them, how many HP does the troll have? If you damage the troll sufficiently, is it possible to sever an arm with no HP that can't attack on its own?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I believe, maybe narrating the svered limbs is a good idea. Maybe just make a critial lose an arm by default, and then just have those arms attacking normally. Can maybe provide a flank, and may be grabbed and flung away.
So, please don´t add fiddly rules. ADnD trolls worked well. When I look at monster design, less is usually more.

 

[I'm A Banana]

'tain't that hard to model with mechanics, James: when the troll is crit with a slashing weapon, it spawns a TROLL LIMB in an adjacent square. Troll limbs have 1 hp, 10's for their defenses, and attack like the troll, but at disadvantage and dealing -4 damage (or whatever). Heck, it'd even be EASY to do in 4e, and make trolls an interesting Elite!

So, I don't buy the line he's feeding us there. If you WANT to do it, it's doable.

Personally, I think it's smart to do it. Trolls in D&D make good "elite"-level monsters. Things like regeneration and severed limbs that attack make them worthy of that XP total. This means that even at their normal level, trolls are scary things. Which works really well.

Possibly, they don't WANT to do it. And it's probably fine if they don't. I don't think it'll break any hearts. I think the possibility of doing it is a little more interesting, and deserves to be explored, but if they want it to be only color, it can be only color. The question being, would anyone who didn't narrate the trolls this way be missing some essential part of using a D&D troll? And I don't really think so.